Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

starbucks4ever (98.82)

Lies from obama continue

Recs

22

September 09, 2009 – Comments (50)

Yet another lie:  "individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."

This statement is an insult to intelligence - or to what passes by that name for the majority of the American sheeple. As of today, ZERO states require you to carry auto insurance because there is no law forcing you to buy a car. In all 50 states you have the freedom NOT to buy a car if you prefer to walk. The auto insurance analogy just does not hold water. The correct analogy would be a federal law ordering you to pay a $3800 fine for refusing to purchase an overpriced gas guzzler that you don't need.

50 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 09, 2009 at 10:21 PM, jmarty032 (< 20) wrote:

Your a fool if think the current system is good. I do not agree with everything he said but but somthing has to change. He is not a liar. YOU ARE A RIGHT WING FOOL!

Report this comment
#2) On September 09, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Imperial1964 (97.51) wrote:

Woah, jmarty, what's with the all-caps name calling out of nowhere because somebody doesn't agree with you?  Zloj didn't say the curent system is perfect--nor did he say it was imperfect.  We shouldn't put words in his mouth.

Politics absolutely disgusts me anymore.  It polarizes people to serve partisan interests.  Instead of debating facts we argue partisan propaganda--while the same old crooks rob us blind.

Obama not a liar?  He is a politician, isn't he?  I've never found one who wasn't.  You don't get to be president by telling the truth!

I really wish people would stop regurgitating the lies they were told by some red or blue pundit preying on their fears and doubts to further some left- or right-wing agenda.  (I'm not referring to anyone here on CAPS, but to people in my own life).  I actually know several people who still believe Obama is a practicing Muslim who was never a US citizen.

Check facts.  Debate.  Don't believe everything someone tells you and don't take it personal when someone disagrees.

 

"It's all illusion anyway"
-Neil Young, Winterlong

Report this comment
#3) On September 09, 2009 at 10:39 PM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

I think that zloj makes a good point.  Not everyone owns a car, but everyone has a body that at some time will require medical treatment.  No one under 16 owns a car, but millions of Americans under 16 still need to see a doctor.  Where I live, auto insurance is mandatory, but many people don't have it, and the law is not enforced, even after accidents.

 

I would like to see a group of Democrats and Republicans sit down together and work on a bipartisan plan to improve health care or implement health care reform.  Obama did promise to be a unifier, but he has not met with any Republicans since April on health care reform (according to the article circulating today).  Health care is important for all people, so people of both parties need to be included in the debate.  Deciding to go it alone is not the answer.  Both parties, I believe, would be willing to compromise on an effective plan if both parties were consulted.

Report this comment
#4) On September 09, 2009 at 10:40 PM, AvianFlu (35.29) wrote:

There are plenty of good proposals out there for changing the health care system in such a manner that rights of individual Americans are not taken away. I think we can all agree that the current state of medical care in the US leaves a lot to be desired. However, Obama's plan is a  disaster.

Think about it. There was a time not that long ago when medical care was fairly affordable. Plus, you got competent treatment. Also, you had complete freedom to choose your doctor, hospital, etc. Why can't we go back to those glory days?

What was different in the glory days compared to now? For starters, you couldn't win a 30 million dollar lottery style malpractice award. Where do you think that money comes from? That's right...all the rest of us. There should be malpractice awards, but they should be reasonable. Health care worked before, and it can work again if we simply adopt the systems we used successfully in the past and that the general population was so satisfied with.

Report this comment
#5) On September 09, 2009 at 10:44 PM, starbucks4ever (98.82) wrote:

It's ironic that a couple of posts earlier I was called a Socialist Ideologue. Well, I guess if I made both camps equally unhappy, I must be doing something right :)

Report this comment
#6) On September 09, 2009 at 10:47 PM, whereaminow (42.34) wrote:

zloj,

Well, I guess if I made both camps equally unhappy, I must be doing something right :)

Agreed.  My respect for you grows every day.  Definitely happy you're around for a good debate.  

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#7) On September 09, 2009 at 10:48 PM, guiron (< 20) wrote:

her and work on a bipartisan plan to improve health care or implement health care reform.  Obama did promise to be a unifier, but he has not met with any Republicans since April on health care reform (according to the article circulating today).

There are no Republicans proposing anything. Boehner said when this issue first was brought forward by Obama that they were almost done with their plan, which they would reveal shortly. That was months ago. Not one Republican has offered anything substantive.

They are not debating in good faith. All they offer so far is unsubstantiated noise, meant to obscure the issue and make real reform impossible, which has been their goal every time this has come up for the last 70 years.But at least in the past they worked and debated in good faith. Now, why should I take what those clowns say seriously if they're not willing to act like adults and debate facts? To hell with them, and good riddance for their efforts to flush this country and its citizens' health and lives down the toilet for the sake of their insurance industry money.

Report this comment
#8) On September 09, 2009 at 10:52 PM, guiron (< 20) wrote:

Health care worked before, and it can work again if we simply adopt the systems we used successfully in the past and that the general population was so satisfied with.

When was that? I don't really recall such a time. I gues it was true as long as you had the cash to deal with anything. It's just become much worse by measures of magnitude since those mythical golden days you talk about.

However, if you ask anyone in any other advanced economy - which all have some form of nationalized health care, incidentally - if they would rather go to private insurance like the US, or if they would rather privatize their systems, they flatly and resoundingly say NO! In fact, the top performing medical system in our country is the VA, an entirely government-run medical system. I guess if it's so horrible, why are we subjecting our vets to it? Why not ask them if they want to give it up?

Report this comment
#9) On September 09, 2009 at 10:55 PM, ElCid16 (97.79) wrote:

I don't think you're uncovering anything astounding here...this is more like nit-picking over a technicality.  If he instead said "just as most states require you to carry auto insurance [if you own an automobile]," somebody else would say he was being redundant.

Nonetheless, I'm sure you'll get some recs from the Obama bashers...

Report this comment
#10) On September 09, 2009 at 10:59 PM, topsecret09 (40.64) wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/09/congressman-yells-lie-obama-speech/          http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1634981

Report this comment
#11) On September 09, 2009 at 11:05 PM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

Actually, the Republicans have drawn up several helpful and significant health care reform suggestions, which have been totally ignored by liberals.  Look, for instance, at the reforms suggested by Tom Price of Georgia.

Report this comment
#12) On September 09, 2009 at 11:09 PM, starbucks4ever (98.82) wrote:

 dkilgour16 

It's NOT a technicality. You can avoid auto insurance premiums by not driving, but now here is something you can't avoid except by emigrating to Canada. Besides, the whole point of the $3800 fine is to help HMOs raise the premiums they charge by $3800.

Report this comment
#13) On September 09, 2009 at 11:19 PM, devoish (99.10) wrote:

There was a time not that long ago when medical care was fairly affordable.

We had the negotiating power of unions then.

Zloj,

It is a good enough analogy. In most States people who own cars are required to get insurance. If not having the ability to opt out by not owning a car means the analogy doesn't work for you, that is ok for you. For most people the ability to opt out of owning a car would not be a reality without spending, maybe even $3800 in taxes, on public transportation and the new infrastructure needed.

 

Report this comment
#14) On September 09, 2009 at 11:32 PM, booyahh (< 20) wrote:

As of today, ZERO states require you to carry auto insurance because there is no law forcing you to buy a car. In all 50 states you have the freedom NOT to buy a car if you prefer to walk.

Do you have a brain? At some point, everyone falls sick and sees a doctor. Falling sick is not a choice, but an inevitable fact. Health insurance should be mandatory, if you can afford it, and if people still refuse to get it, they should not be treated: they should be left to die outside the hospital. Sorry, what I mean to say is we should enforce their freedom to die outside the hospital without treatment.

Report this comment
#15) On September 09, 2009 at 11:34 PM, nottheSEC (81.34) wrote:

  I certainly do not attempt to deconstruct a politican using a singular innocuous flub.I judge his/her record and the ISSUES.   Lets not beat around the Bush. Ok sorry. All presidents have    made verbal flubs.Some more than others

 I do not define any politician on his inspirational speech to kids whether that be George H W Bush or Obama I judge his/her record.and the ISSUES 

 The issue is HEALTH CARE 

Nobody In America should be broke because they got sick.That is not what we stand for. In a bipartisan forum lets get it done.Obama said the door is open. Solutions not rhetoric.           We the people not politics as usual. AD HOC not ad hominem!

MY Nickle...J

Report this comment
#16) On September 10, 2009 at 12:02 AM, AvianFlu (35.29) wrote:

quiron:

In answer to your question, I can remember paying $85 per month for good health coverage around 1991. Even adjusted for inflation that is a workable figure. However, for the real golden age I suggest we look back pre-1960. At the time most people did not even buy medical insurance because it was so affordable. It was pay as you go, similar to buying any other consumer item. For those that wanted it medical insurance could be had for about $25 per YEAR. Let's emulate that model.

Report this comment
#17) On September 10, 2009 at 12:17 AM, starbucks4ever (98.82) wrote:

"Do you have a brain? At some point, everyone falls sick and sees a doctor. Falling sick is not a choice, but an inevitable fact."

Last time I checked, I had a brain :). Falling sick is not a choice, however, purchasing an overpriced insurance that takes in premiums 2-3 times more than the actual cost of treatment the average participant is going to get from it, is most definitely a choice. Paying out of pocket is a much cheaper option, and this mandatory thing is just an attempt to prevent consumers from bypassing the middleman.

Report this comment
#18) On September 10, 2009 at 12:26 AM, starbucks4ever (98.82) wrote:

To think of it, Alstry did get something to chew on today on 9/9/9. Not a stock market crash, maybe, but a piece of "zombulation" for sure. A $3800 fine for anyone who purchases his healthcare directly from his physician certainly qualifies as zombulation. 

Report this comment
#19) On September 10, 2009 at 12:28 AM, cbwang888 (25.91) wrote:

Obama has lost his credits on his calling for change on Wall Street.

Full of talks and the results turn out to be totally different.  He said he will create or save 4M jobs by 2010 and 90% in private sector

We now know that private sector got hit the hardest without recovery because there is NO stimulus and banks aren't extending credits for them.

 

Report this comment
#20) On September 10, 2009 at 12:33 AM, ajm101 (32.21) wrote:

zloj - did you really just say you couldn't avoid mandatory healthcare unless you moved to Canada?

For what it's worth, the $4K fine for not having health insurance is terrible _in the absence of_ a nonprofit public option that would guarantee competition.  Otherwise it's a giveaway to the insurance industry.

However, given that society has decided to treat the ill at collective expense (which is what the treatment of the uninsured at emergency rooms constitutes) I think it's fare to mandate coverage.

The car insurance anology is fair in that sense, because nobody has a choice about avoiding health insurance risks (unlike the choice of not owning a car).

Report this comment
#21) On September 10, 2009 at 6:01 AM, cthomas1017 (91.98) wrote:

and yet not one mention of tort reform.

Report this comment
#22) On September 10, 2009 at 9:18 AM, 100ozRound (29.66) wrote:

The only kind of auto insurance that is required - at least in most states - is liability insurance...in case an accident is your own fault it will protect the other driver.  Every other type of auto insurance is just extra.  I can't see how mandatory medical insurance relates to auto insurance in this sense.  Unless maybe you injure someone else or get someone sick....

it is a poor analogy...

Report this comment
#23) On September 10, 2009 at 9:34 AM, ajm101 (32.21) wrote:

100ozRound - a flaw in you reasoning is that the government and private industry won't fix your car for you if you don't have anything but liability insurance... you just won't have a car.  However, if you don't have health insurance and you show up in an emergency room bleeding, the doctors will treat you without regard for insurance because they are morally and ethically obligated.  The cost of that treatment raises costs for all other (insured) patients... it's freeloading.  If someone wants to be able to not carry health insurance and be left dying on the side of the road, then I have go to the lame defense of "they should move to some other country then".

Report this comment
#24) On September 10, 2009 at 9:54 AM, ElCid16 (97.79) wrote:

$3,800 is the maximum penalty for a family making $66,000 or more.  If you're single, the most you'll have to pay is only like $950 or something...

Report this comment
#25) On September 10, 2009 at 10:15 AM, TMFKris (86.00) wrote:

I read through as much of the text of Obama's speech as I could manage at this point and he's talking about giving everyone affordable, effective, full-coverage health care without adding a dime to the federal deficit! Sounds like something everyone could support. Yet it's just words. Studies show, for instance, that preventive care doesn't always save money.

"Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs." from the NEJM  http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661 If everyone gets preventive care, but only a small percentage were going to get the disease, then we've spent money to "prevent" something that was never going to happen to most people.

There are just so many angles to consider.

Is this statement from Obama true: "Another woman, from Texas, was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne."? Acne?

Kris (Motley Fool copyeditor)

Report this comment
#26) On September 10, 2009 at 10:44 AM, ChannelDunlap (< 20) wrote:

Kris - This is true  How sad is that.

RE: Healthcare

I am simply not OK with million of people being afraid of healthcare.  (I won't say "unable to get" because yes they can get it if they don't mind going broke.)  The fact is that the cost is already distrubuted over those who do pay, so the only reason it can be at all 'cheap' is due to the people who just don't go.  And that's not cool.  The same goes for our "responsiveness".  The only reason we don't wait for our procedures is because there are millions of people who just don't go in.

To be honest, cost a not my primary concern with this issue.  Priority #1 for me is equal and affordable healthcare for everybody.  Get that, then we can start looking at cutting costs.

Report this comment
#27) On September 10, 2009 at 10:55 AM, nottheSEC (81.34) wrote:

. TMFMiloBreathed quoted "Studies show, for instance, that preventive care doesn't always save money". 

First good artilce and thanks for bringing it to my attention.On your quote and the article  I believe the article intends to prioritize prevention where its is most cost effective than the treatment of the disease and to identify efficient modalities while eliminating outdated ones.  

The authors' notes "Preventable causes of death, such as tobacco smoking, poor diet and physical inactivity, and misuse of alcohol have been estimated to be responsible for 900,000 deaths annually — nearly 40% of total yearly mortality in the United States.1 " 

I am of the belief that health care education should be well funded from Kindergarten.Habits good or bad start early That is the lowest cost of prevention and on a macro level would save billions.

My two cents..J

 

Report this comment
#28) On September 10, 2009 at 11:01 AM, ipfmanager (95.12) wrote:

I think it is remarkable, and quite funny, that all the left bs on this site always comes from people who have scores less than 55ish.  If CAPS ranking holds ANY water, these people simply don't know how the world opperates. 

So a warning to players ranked > 50 : Making outlandish leftist comments only drives home the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about in politics or the economy. 

Report this comment
#29) On September 10, 2009 at 11:18 AM, TMFKris (86.00) wrote:

@nottheSEC: I agree teaching good habits is probably the lowest-cost prevention that would pay off in the long run. Especially if families and communities are reinforcing the lessons rather than sending people to the doctor every six months for some sort of test and a 20-minute appointment with the doctor that includes the blindingly insightful revelation that they should "lose weight" and "stop smoking."

A couple more angles beyond economics to look at I thought of: How much is society willing to pay to extend someone's life two weeks? Two months? One year? Five years? Is improving quality of life worth it even if it doesn't save money in the long run?

That breast cancer/acne/policy cancellation is appalling.

Kris (Motley Fool copyeditor)

Report this comment
#30) On September 10, 2009 at 11:19 AM, 100ozRound (29.66) wrote:

ajm101

#23 Where exactly is the flaw in my reasoning?  I never mentioned whose responsibility it is (or should be) to cover any gap caused by any lack of insurance coverage...

Report this comment
#31) On September 10, 2009 at 12:10 PM, ajm101 (32.21) wrote:

@ipfmanager - sorry my CAPS timing was bad, I went in at the market top and my score cratered.  I have raised my score by more than 50 points in the past couple of months.  I'll still listen to what you have to say when I'm looking down at your score, at least.  Devoish seems to do ok.

@100ozRound - I was saying the health insurance is comparable to auto liability insurance because a working car is not compulsury, but right now getting emergency treatment when injured is and that cost is shouldered by others (by getting hurt while uninsured, you are harming othersf financially).  As for who is responsible for covering that gap.. you can't get blood from a stone if medical care bankrupts people.

Report this comment
#32) On September 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM, 100ozRound (29.66) wrote:

ajm101

not apples to apples - I think there are way too many variables involved to properly compare the two.

Report this comment
#33) On September 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM, ajm101 (32.21) wrote:

100ozRound - I completely agree it's not apples to apples, but I think the comparison between mandatory auto (liability) coverage and the proposed healthcare reforms is fair enough when trying to convey the concept behind healthcare reform.

Report this comment
#34) On September 10, 2009 at 1:00 PM, blake303 (29.44) wrote:

The analogy is apt. I watched the speech this morning and in my opinion he is obviously is referring to drivers and the requirement to carry liability insurance, which at least protects other drivers if you are at fault in an accident. The comparison between those that do not carry health insurance is appropriate because uninsured drivers who are responsible for accidents drive up costs for everyone else. Anyone who has been hit by an uninsured driver (me) should be able to see the analogy is a fair one. It certainly is not a lie, even if you do not agree with it. I also liked analogy to public and private universities. 

Report this comment
#35) On September 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM, nottheSEC (81.34) wrote:

ipfmanager  what is your proposal (if any) for health care reform? Perhaps I do not know the market but as health care professional I know the topic.  

Report this comment
#36) On September 10, 2009 at 1:42 PM, nottheSEC (81.34) wrote:

Is the topic health care? Just asking...J

Report this comment
#37) On September 10, 2009 at 1:43 PM, prose976 (< 20) wrote:

Not really.  The topic is Obama, who is the mouthpiece behind the healthcare.

Report this comment
#38) On September 10, 2009 at 1:59 PM, prose976 (< 20) wrote:

But I will offer this.

I believe individuals who are careless with their health, hypocondriacs; catastrophic/life and limb medical expenses and emergency room care that is provided to millions of illegals in this country are the biggest threats to our economy and American's as individuals.  On top of this, billing fraud is rampant.

Before we reform health, the illegals must go.  They are draining us working taxpayers.  Hypocondriacs need to pay for their frequent visits for minor issues and those who don't care for themselves (to stay healthy), that is really their issue.  Anyone can exercise, eat right, sleep enough, and drink plenty of water.  And to keep your brain healthy, get away from the tube and read more, study more, play in the arts.

Health care is not a benevolent profession.  It is a money-making profession, so any government intervention is not going to improve the situation.  Just look at the airlines, the post office, social security.  The government is a disaster at making anything run more smoothely or efficiently. 

After we've taken care of the illegals issue, then, a government regulated (not run) system for catastrophic, life and limb only health care would work well.

In other words, only these deathbead and catastrophic conditions should be PARTIALLY shouldered by taxpayers.  Agovernment run "public option" will have everyone using the system with every sniffle to bruise...and we still won't have control over the costs that are incurred by tens of millions (and growing) illegal and undocumentd individuals who use our emergency rooms like most of us use the grocery store.

 

Report this comment
#39) On September 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM, ipfmanager (95.12) wrote:

ipfmanager  what is your proposal (if any) for health care reform? Perhaps I do not know the market but as health care professional I know the topic.  

 

As a completely tongue in cheek answer:  Anyone who wants to go to school for medicine should be given a FREE RIDE.  That would lower the costs of Dr.s since there will be more competition.  Also, tort reform would get down the malpractice overhead.  The last part, that I can't wrap my arms around, is how to continue R&D in a socialized economy.  But I guess my one positive trait is that I know to stay far away from things I don't understand....unlike certain (actaully every) politicians. So I don't know.  We should find someone who does know...That's, ya know, not "above their pay grade".

 

 

Report this comment
#40) On September 10, 2009 at 2:20 PM, ipfmanager (95.12) wrote:

Oh. About my unanswered questions. How about every new R&D development gets money from...you guessed it- China.  That's usually the solution to all the US quandries

Report this comment
#41) On September 10, 2009 at 4:08 PM, starbucks4ever (98.82) wrote:

ipfmanager,

My score went from 90 to 30 and then back to 90 within a year and I didn't become any smarter or stupider during that time... 

Report this comment
#42) On September 10, 2009 at 4:42 PM, ipfmanager (95.12) wrote:

According to you....yes.


To surmise my statement was "only whiny liberals have sub-par scores."  Not "all people with low scores make whiny liberal comments".  Go ahead and make some pinko-commie remarks and prove me wrong.

But your arguement does remind me of the what the principal says in the end of Billy Madison.  And I quote:

"what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

:)

Report this comment
#43) On September 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM, booyahh (< 20) wrote:

No mandatory insurance. From now on, anyone who shows up at a hospital without health insurance should not be treated. They should be allowed to die. Isn't that the American way ?

Report this comment
#44) On September 10, 2009 at 5:07 PM, lemoneater (82.02) wrote:

#28 ipfmanager, convincing arguments are better than ad hominem attacks. As far as I'm aware there is no direct correlation between CAPS score and IQ or political orientation. My score is low because I'm still learning about investing. Also I am about as far right as a person can get since I'm a conservative Bible believing Christian. It is very easy to get heated when discussing politics, but I'm thankful to be challenged to think by others. I will try to keep an open mind for your blogs as well.

Report this comment
#45) On September 10, 2009 at 5:14 PM, starbucks4ever (98.82) wrote:

booyahh,

It's just cheaper to pay out of pocket, it's as simple as that. 

Report this comment
#46) On September 10, 2009 at 5:34 PM, BigFatBEAR (29.49) wrote:

Obama on why mandatory insurance is necessary, and even beneficial to society:

"Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those -- especially the young and the healthy -- who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek -- especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions -- just can't be achieved.

And that's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. (Applause.) Likewise -- likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. (Applause.) But we can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part."

Report this comment
#47) On September 10, 2009 at 5:39 PM, blake303 (29.44) wrote:

lemoneater (63.33) wrote: "I am about as far right as a person can get since I'm a conservative Bible believing Christian."

Huh? Religion shapes political views no doubt, but how does Christianity compell believers to lean so far to the right? I'm no expert, but Jesus strikes me as being as far to the opposite end of the spectrum as possible. Just curious.

Report this comment
#48) On September 10, 2009 at 8:46 PM, DaretothREdux (45.78) wrote:

Zloj is a "right-winged fool"????

That's the best comment I have seen today. I'm still laughing.

+1 BTW Zloj,

Dare

Report this comment
#49) On September 10, 2009 at 9:09 PM, eldemonio (98.60) wrote:

Mandatory health insurance is ridiculous.  If you don't want to insure yourself, fine.  If you come down with a serious illness, you should have to cover the costs.  If you choose not to pay, you should be sterilized.  It's that simple.

Report this comment
#50) On September 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM, ipfmanager (95.12) wrote:

lemoneater (63.33) wrote: "I am about as far right as a person can get since I'm a conservative Bible believing Christian."

Huh? Religion shapes political views no doubt, but how does Christianity compell believers to lean so far to the right? I'm no expert, but Jesus strikes me as being as far to the opposite end of the spectrum as possible. Just curious.

 

Holy cow!  Jesus probably is a Dem....never thought of it that way.

 And lemoneater, let me repeat myself:

 

To surmise my statement was "only whiny liberals have sub-par scores."  Not "all people with low scores make whiny liberal comments".  And to be clear: Neither right-wingers with bad scores, nor left-wingers with good scores are a part of my thesis.   So I'll give you the same line about your arguement-which is completley light-hearted and supposed to be a joke and in no way is a personal attack.  It's just a funny movie quote:

Your arguement does remind me of the what the principal says in the end of Billy Madison.  And I quote:

"what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

:)

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement